The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions and debates than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.

"In a much needed breakthrough, neuroscientists have developed a technique to predict how much physical pain people are feeling by looking at images of their brain scans.
Until this point, the only way for doctors to "measure" pain is by using a pain scale. This typically involves patient self-reporting — like ranking pain on a scale from 1 to 10 — and observing their behavior."

"We may philosophize well or ill, but we must philosophize." – Wilfrid Sellars

"In a much needed breakthrough, neuroscientists have developed a technique to predict how much physical pain people are feeling by looking at images of their brain scans.
Until this point, the only way for doctors to "measure" pain is by using a pain scale. This typically involves patient self-reporting — like ranking pain on a scale from 1 to 10 — and observing their behavior."

But that's the physiological brain aspect of the subject's brain-mind. For someone other than the subject to understand the subjective aspect of the subject's brain-mind communication is needed. Art, or psychiatric conversations or suchlike.

My response,BigBango, which I did not post, was that you did not provide a simple analogy.

I could provide a simple analogy Belindi but it would fail to capture the essence of my thesis. It would be like my thesis but only in a very limited way. I am afraid that your hesitation to expand your mind is too strong and that you are trying to force me into a description of my thesis that is easily refutable.

Analogies for many modern theories are also very difficult to construct. For example, you give me a simple analogy for quantum mechanics which declares that a cat in a box must be seen as both dead and alive in quantum supersistion until the cat is observed dead or alive. Given that quantum mechanics violates our laws of logic makes it very difficult to find an analogy in our normal world.

Again Einstein's General Relativity shows space is curved into geodesics that light must follow by the presence of mass. Yet there is no "medium" that we can point to that is deformed in that way. Therefore there is no simple analogy that like a rubber sheet that holds true to his theory in our natural world. There is only the non-Euclidean Riemann Geometry that has no "Substrate".

I don't think so, BigBango. You had better just give up on me thanks all the same for trying.

Please Belindi I will never give up on you. I will get off your case and hope that some time in the future you might try again. I have seen a deep thinker in your analyses and a pleasant personality. I will admit that I am asking a lot for anyone to follow my thesis.

To other thinkers who might be interested in trying to understand a theory of the world that crosses major events like the Big Bang, I say stay tuned. The reason this is relevant to this thread is that it has a cogent theory, not clouded in spirits or spiritualism, to explain the nature of what survives our death and what gave birth to our "consciousness".

This theory begins with an assumption that the world before the Big Bang was a universe of galaxies. Their difference to our galaxies is that they had grown old and their galactic centers where collapsing on one another. We have evidence that our galactic centers are evolving a physical relationship with other galactic centers. Will those physical forces ever reverse the fact that our universe is expanding? Maybe or maybe not. Maybe dark energy will determine that. The important point is that our science is only focused on the nature of those electromagnetic forces that evolved from a collapsing universe from before the Big Bang. Our science is mesmerized by the science that evolved from the collapse of those pre Big Bang galaxies. It has little to say about the other 90% of the mass of our universe.

My thesis starts with the evolution of the other 90% of the mass of the universe that existed before and after the Big Bang.

Anyone interested in these ideas please realize that your questions are welcome and I will try my best to answer.

I offer a thesis that accounts for the nature of the electrodynamic interaction between known physical elements that are consistent with our scientific knowledge and that accounts for the knowledge we have of 10% of the mass of the universe. In addition I propose a theory that accounts for the other 90% of the mass of the universe.

My theory asserts that dark matter is the remnants of a collapsed universe preceding the Big Bang' minus the electrodynamics of that universes black hole galactic centers.

You can make believe these ideas are to hard to understand but you tell me what ideas you or anyone else has that explain the ratio of dark matter to visible matter.

My theory asserts that dark matter is the remnants of a collapsed universe preceding the Big Bang' minus the electrodynamics of that universes black hole galactic centers.

Interesting. So the previous universe's black hole's have evaporated into Hawking radiation? Would that then be dark energy? And those that have not evaporated would be dark matter? Dark matter is co-located with matter in our universe so maybe the second does not make sense.

The big crunch is a hypothesis that after the death of the last star all black holes collapse into each other creating the singularity. A reboot of all information. Galactic centers and all other black holes would be all the matter that existed in the crunching universe. Dark matter has gravity so is locked into the rules of time and relativity.
Thoughts and emotions in our current understanding are a chemical process. In my own thinking I can't conceive of a vessel in the known universe that can preserve such a thing. I have however enjoyed the work by Hammeroff and Penrose primarily known as the thinking universe. Small dendrites along neurons can possibly be quantum connected.
Search Orchestrated objective reduction, I could leave links but the amount of info available is incredible. If interested read as deep as you personally choose.

Belindi, I am not a physicist or any kind of scientist. I try to be a philosopher. I personally feel it necessary to try to comprehend the basics of contemporary science like QM and relativity because those metaphysical ideas need to be put into perspective with the other basic principles of philosophy, particularly with our epistemic theories about acquiring knowledge and deriving truth. I understand that you have fallen into the clutches of analytical philosophy and have therefore given over your responsibility to establish any kind of thesis about metaphysics to science. It's all to common in our academic community to do this but I warn you science and philosophy will suffer from that negligence. I consider myself a continental philosopher and I try to work hand in hand with scientists. It's good for philosophy and it's good for science.

But I certainly respect you as a person and appreciate your kind way of dismissing my theories.

BigBango, it would be stupid to ignore science in our philosophising. QM and relativity aren't' metaphysical' in the word's popular sense of 'other-worldly'. I sort of understand popular descriptions of such great theories as relativity and the Standard Theory, in physics or those of biology such as natural selection,nevertheless I have only my own sense of what is due to scepticism to evaluate novel ideas such as yours. I respect you and your creating imagination but have yet to understand what your idea is about. I have so far failed to understand any descriptions of dark matter.

BigBango, it would be stupid to ignore science in our philosophising. QM and relativity aren't' metaphysical' in the word's popular sense of 'other-worldly'. I sort of understand popular descriptions of such great theories as relativity and the Standard Theory, in physics or those of biology such as natural selection,nevertheless I have only my own sense of what is due to scepticism to evaluate novel ideas such as yours. I respect you and your creating imagination but have yet to understand what your idea is about. I have so far failed to understand any descriptions of dark matter.

eyesofastranger and devens99: I will be getting back to you shortly, stay tuned.

Belindi said, " QM and relativity aren't' metaphysical' in the word's popular sense of 'other-worldly'." Nothing could be further from the truth than the popular misuse of the word metaphysics. It gets interpreted as other worldly or beyond physics because the word looks like Latin when it is actually Greek, or vice versa. It actually means "meta", after and "physics", meaning what Aristotle wrote about after he wrote the section "The Physics".

In truth and in proper usage in philosophy, it is one of the huge two basic pillars of philosophy which are Epistemology and Metaphysics. Epistemology being one's thesis about "how we know things" and Metaphysics being the description of "The nature of objects in our thesis".

Given that less well known but fundamentally correct use of the term "metaphysics" we see that the "Standard Theory" is essentially pure metaphysics.

The big crunch is a hypothesis that after the death of the last star all black holes collapse into each other creating the singularity. A reboot of all information. Galactic centers and all other black holes would be all the matter that existed in the crunching universe. Dark matter has gravity so is locked into the rules of time and relativity.

You are close to what I am proposing. The differences between us is that in my version I account for the existence of dark matter and suggest other properties that dark matter could have. I do follow somewhat Penrose and his work is a step in the right direction. Where I differ most blatantly is that I introduce a role for galactic civilizations and assert that the cosmology of an old universe that is collapsing cannot be accounted for in the simplistic terms we are familiar with. That is, our current assumption, we are all complete victims of certain physical laws. No, ancient civilizations will have very advanced technology, see Kardashev (The Kardashev scale is a method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement based on the amount of energy a civilization is able to use).

Instead of asserting that the Big Crunch happens after all matter is subsumed after the death of the last star I propose that technologically advanced civilizations actually anticipate the collapse and escape by distancing themselves from its calculated point of collision. Also see "Genesis of the Cosmos" The Ancient Science of Continuous Creation, by Paul A. LaViolette, Ph.d.. In the preface he refers to the ancients before the Egyptians that talk about the "Great Separation". I take it to mean the splitting of the pre-universe into the cold determinism of the crunching black holes and the mass that escapes under the auspices of the advanced technology of pre-BIg Bang civilizations.

My theory asserts that dark matter is the remnants of a collapsed universe preceding the Big Bang' minus the electrodynamics of that universes black hole galactic centers.

Interesting. So the previous universe's black hole's have evaporated into Hawking radiation? Would that then be dark energy? And those that have not evaporated would be dark matter? Dark matter is co-located with matter in our universe so maybe the second does not make sense.

Dark energy is a problem I fail to have any good ideas about except to say it may be a condition of space that determines whether or not a universe is expanding or contracting. If we imagine the previous universe collapsing, that is the black hole galactic centers. that may be as you say some still having mass and others having evaporated. If they are evaporated, I assume they have become a property of space. If they still have mass then they are the mass source of the resulting plasma of the Big Bang. Dark matter is the mass of stars and planets that escape the big crunch under the control of advanced civilizations that flee the big crunch preserving their valued ecosystems.

So the result of this hypothesis is to assert that the pre-universe divides into the physics between collapsing black hole centers and the collision escaping stars and planets of the pre-universe. If you care to do the speculations then you will see that the dark matter we now sense is that escaping mass. The ratio of dark matter to visible matter in our pre-universe remains constant from pre to post universes.